This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 TONI C’ de BACA, 7 Plaintiff and Third-Party 8 Defendant-Appellee, 9

v. NO. 30,239 10 ALBINO VARELA and ERISELDA 11 VARELA (deceased), as husband 12 and wife, 13 Defendants, 14 and 15 BALBINA VARELA ARMIJO, 16 DOROTHY VARELA ARMIJO 17 and CORINE VARELA ROYBAL, 18 Intervenors and Third-Party 19 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 20 and 21 MARIA “CONNIE” VALENCIA, et al., 22 Third-Party Defendants23 Cross-Appellants. 24 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY 25 Sam B. Sanchez, District Judge 26 Domenici Law Firm, P. C. 272 Peter V. Domenici, Jr. 1 Albuquerque, NM 2 for Cross-Appellants 3 Danelle J. Smith 4 Las Vegas, NM 5 for Appellants 6 MEMORANDUM OPINION 7 FRY, Chief Judge. 8 Intervenors-Third Party Plaintiffs-Appe llants (“Intervenors” ) and Third-Party 9 Defendants-Cross-Appellants (“Third-Party Defendants”) seek to appeal from the 10 district court’s judgment purporting to resolv e title issues between the parties, which 11 the district court certified for appeal under Rule 1-054(B)(1) NMRA. Third-Party 12 Defendants also sought to appeal from the district court’s partial summary judgment 13 order on the tort claims. We have treated these parties’ appeals as one appeal and 14 issued one notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing summary dismissal. 15 We proposed dismissal for the district court’s improper certification of its judgment 16 on title issues and because partial summary judgment on the tort claims was not a 17 final, appealable order. 18 Intervenors responded to our notice w ith a memorandum in opposition. Third19 Party Defendants filed a notice of conc urrence with the factual and legal 203 representations contained in Interve nors’ memorandum in opposition. We have 1 considered the parties’ responses to our no tice and remain persuaded that the district 2 court improperly certified its order for appeal . We therefore dismiss Intervenors’ and 3 Third-Party Defendants’ appeals. 4 In their docketing statement, Intervenors listed the following four issues on 5 appeal: (1) asking whether the district c ourt’s certification of its judgment for appeal 6 was an abuse of discretion; (2) requesti ng this Court to enter a specific order 7 determining when a partition decree as to ownership or title interests is appealable; (3) 8 asking whether Plaintiff wa s a good faith purchaser fo r value under the Recording 9 Act; and (4) asking whether the quitclaim d eeds from Plaintiff’s siblings, alone, were 10 sufficient to transfer fee simple title to th e property to Plaintiff. [Intervenors DS 15- 11 16] Third-Party Defendants raised two i ssues in their docketing statement: (1) 12 genuine issues of material fact should preclude partial summary judgment as to the 13 title claims of the heirs of Marcos Varela , Sr., [3d-party Defendants DS 11-16] and (2) 14 the tort claims of the heirs of Marcos Varela, Sr. [Id. 16-18] The docketing 15 statements, however, did not explain why f actually and legally the district court’s 16 judgment, purporting to resolve all the title issues between the parties, was properly 17 certified for this Court’s review. See Rule 12-208(D), (E) NMRA (requiring that the 18 docketing statement contain all the facts material to the issues raised on appeal and a 194 statement of this Court’s jurisdiction without conclusory statements). Our notice 1 addressed only the propriety of certifying its order for review and the lack of finality 2 and appealability of the partial summary judgment on the tort claims. 3 As we stated, this Court’s jurisdiction lies from final, appealable orders. See 4 Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 113 N.M. 231, 237, 824 P.2d 1033, 1039 (1992); 5 see also Montoya v. Anaconda Mining Co. , 97 N.M. 1, 4, 635 P.2d 1323, 1326 (Ct. 6 App. 1981) (observing that an appellate c ourt will raise jurisdictional questions on its 7 own motion). Generally, an order or judgmen t is not considered final until all issues 8 of law and fact have been determined and the case has been dispos ed of by the district 9 court to the fullest extent possible. See Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. , 113 N.M. at 236, 824 10 P.2d at 1038. However, “whe n more than one claim for relief is presented in an 11 action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cr oss-claim or third-party claim, the court 12 may enter a final judgment as to one or mo re but fewer than all of the claims only 13 upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.” Rule 1- 14 054(B)(1). This rule is an exception to fi nality and permits piecemeal appeals, against 15 which we have strong, l ong-standing policies. See Sundial Press v. City of 16 Albuquerque , 114 N.M. 236, 240, 836 P.2d 1257, 1261 (Ct. App. 1992). “The 17 [district] court should not certify judgments for immediate appeals merely to put off 185 further work on a case or to accommodate couns el’s wishes. . . . In a close case, the 1 [district] court should decide against certifying a judgment for immediate appeal.” Id. 2 In construing the rule, we have stated th at it requires the district court to engage 3 a two-step analysis, determining first whether there was a final judgment as to one or 4 more claims, and second whether there was no just reason for delay in finalizing the 5 judgment. Id. Even with a certification from the district court under the rule, we may 6 refuse to review the judgment where the di strict court’s certification was an abuse of 7 discretion. Id. at 239, 836 P.2d at 1260. 8 A district court may abuse its discreti on in certifying its judgment under the rule 9 where the judgment does not “finally determine[] at least one discrete claim.” See 10 Khalsa v. Levinson , 1998-NMCA-110, ¶ 19, 125 N.M. 680, 964 P.2d 844. Similarly, 11 “this Court has held that a [district]court abuses its discretion by certifying an order 12 that determines an issue co mmon to some of the claims but does not actually dispose 13 of any one claim.” Id. “Our Supreme Court has held th at a [district] court abuses its 14 discretion in certifying a judgment for immediate appeal under [the rule] when the 15 issues decided by the judgment are intertwine d, legally or factually, with the issues 16 not yet resolved, or when resolution of the remaining issues may alter or revise the 17 judgment previously entered.” Id. ¶ 20. 186 In the current case, Intervenors and Third-Party Defendants seek to appeal the 1 district court’s judgment purporting to resolv e all the title issues between the parties, 2 which the district court certified for appealpursuant to Rule 1-054(B)(1). We noted 3 that after a decade of litigation resulting ina voluminous record proper, the district 4 court’s judgment neither specified the prope rty interests awarded to the parties nor 5 ordered partition, and it separated the remaining tort clai ms from the title issues and 6 reserved them for future determination. [RP 2253-55] The judgment simply denies 7 and grants various motions of the partie s. Neither Interve nors nor Third-Party 8 Defendants explained why factually and legally it was properly certified for this 9 Court’s review. We stated that it was not clear to this Court what property interests 10 the district court awarded and to whom, and what issues remain from the numerous 11 parties and pleadings. Our notice proposedto dismiss on the grounds that it was not 12 clear that the title issues had been resolv ed to the fullest extent possible prior to 13 partition and that a partition request filed in the course of the quiet title action 14 rendered the judgment on title interlocutory untilpartition is complete. Also, we 15 declined Intervenors’ request that we enter a specific order determining when a 16 partition decree as to ownership or title interests is appealable. 17 In response to our notice, Intervenors argue that there are no remaining issues 18 that are intertwined with the judgment on title. [MIO 3-7] Intervenors’ response 197 provides this Court with a summary of whatinterests in the property each party was 1 awarded under the judgment and the basis for the district court’s ruling. [Id.] 2 However, Intervenors acknowledge that the judgment created an ambiguity insofar as 3 the award to Plaintiff was described as identi cal to Tract I of the property, but contains 4 only approximately 50% of the acreage actually in Tract I. [MIO 5-6] It is unclear 5 to Intervenors whether the district court’ s judgment on the title issues and the district 6 court’s order granting partial summary judgment intended Plaintiff to receive 7/8 of 7 the entirety of Tract I or 7/8 of the 12.79 acres within the larger acreage of Tract I. 8 [MIO 6] Intervenors’ complaint for partition proposed that the entire 24.649 acres 9 in Tract I should be vested in fixed percen tages among the twenty-eight different heirs 10 and partitioned. [MIO 6] Because it remain s unclear what interests in the property 11 the district court ordered, we are not convin ced that the title issues within this property 12 dispute have been resolved to the fullest extent prior to partition. See Khalsa , 13 1998-NMCA-110, ¶ 19. 14 On this basis alone, we hold that the district court did not properly certify its 15 judgment on title issues. We therefore dismiss the appeal and remand for further 16 proceedings, which should result in a clear articulation of all the parties’ interests in 17 all of the property in dispute. 188 CONCLUSION 1 For these narrow reasons, we hold that the district court’s judgment was 2 improperly certified for our re view, and dismiss the parties’ appeals. Based on the 3 discussion in our notice, Third-Party Defendant s’ appeal of the district court’s order 4 of partial summary judgment is dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

7 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9

10 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 11

12 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 13